Judgment K.S. Jhaveri, J.—The accused has been found guilty of commission of offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for six months by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar vide judgement and order dated 06.08.2011 passed in Sessions Case No. 29 of 2011. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1212 of 2011. 1.1 Criminal Appeal No. 1300 of 2011 has been preferred by the State against the judgement and order dated 06.08.2011 seeking enhancement of the sentence imposed upon the accused. 2. Learned advocate appearing for the accused submitted that the trial Court has committed serious error of law in convicting the accused on the basis of examination of only two witnesses being the victim and the Investigating Officer. She submitted that the prosecution has not examined independent witnesses like doctor, panchas, victim’s parents or neighbours in the entire case. She submitted that the incident in question is alleged to have taken place in an open place and even then no independent witness has been examined. She submitted that though names of as many as 36 witnesses were mentioned in the charge-sheet only two witnesses being the prosecutrix and the PSI are examined. 3. Mr. H.S. Soni, learned APP appearing for respondent State supported the impugned judgement and order so far as it convicts the accused and submitted that the trial Court has considered the ample evidence against the accused and convicted him of the charges levelled against him. However, Mr. Soni is not in a position to explain as why the prosecution did not examine other witnesses out of around 36 witnesses who were named in the charge sheet and other documents. 4. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the impugned judgement and order passed by the trial Court, what surfaces is that the prosecution though had named as many as 36 witnesses in the charge-sheet, out of them only two witnesses being the prosecutrix herself and the PSI who is the Investigating Officer in the present case are examined. The doctors, panchas or no other witnesses being relatives of the prosecutrix or the neighbours or villagers have been examined. The doctors, panchas or no other witnesses being relatives of the prosecutrix or the neighbours or villagers have been examined. Even the documents which have been listed in the charge sheet have not been exhibited by the prosecution. There seems to be a serious lapse on the part of the concerned Public Prosecutor before the trial Court in not considering the seriousness of the matter. The trial Court while considering the evidence on record seems to have summarily dealt with the same. We do not intend to comment on the procedure adopted by the learned trial Judge. 4.1 However, there may be ample evidence on record for enhancement of the sentence imposed upon the accused as submitted by learned APP but the same have not been exhibited during the trial and crucial witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution. Even the submission of learned advocate for the appellant that the appellant should be granted benefit of doubt as there is no other witness except the prosecutrix and the investigating officer in support of the prosecution case cannot be taken into account. Therefore in the interest of both the sides, we think it fit that the matter is required to be remanded to the trial Court for fresh trial so as to meet the ends of justice. 5. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed: (i) Accordingly, the judgement and order dated 06.08.2011 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Sessions Case No. 29 of 2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. (ii) The matter is hereby remanded to Sessions Court, Surendranagar for hearing and disposal of Sessions Case No. 29 of 2011 afresh in accordance with law in light of the discussion made hereinabove. (iii) It is clarified that the Principal District Judge, Surendranagar shall look into the matter and allot the case to Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge who in turn shall re-hear the matter after taking into consideration the evidence of witnesses and documents which are crucial for the purpose of trial in the present case. (iv) The rehearing of the matter shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of R & P from this Court. (iv) The rehearing of the matter shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of R & P from this Court. (v) It shall also not be out of place to mention that the learned Public Prosecutor appearing before the trial Court shall not commit such a lapse in future and the competent authority is directed to issue necessary instructions to the Public Prosecutor to prove the case by examining the crucial witnesses and documents in their true perspective in such a serious matter. (vi) We have not entered into the merits of the matter and therefore the trial Court shall consider the same afresh, without being influenced by the fact that this Court has quashed its earlier judgment and order. (vii) Criminal Appeal No. 1212 of 2011 is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Criminal Appeal No. 1300 of 2011 is dismissed. (viii) The Registry is directed to send back the R & P to the Trial Court at the earliest.